As far as Condoleeza Rice goes, I thought the Right wing radio host, Mark Levine, nailed it. Condi would mean that not only will Romney have to spend the rest of his campaign defending Bain but the Bush Administration.
Think about it: maybe we could get her to tell us if she's finally found the WMDs. Then on top of that she's not prolife which is the litmus test for whether you're a conservative the last 30 years. I can't imagine it would be Condi. However, I have run across a lot of conservatives,, including Michelle McPhee who like the idea. I think they're dreaming. Again, I'm shocked if Romney takes someone prochoice. It took him long enough to establish his own prolife bonafides-at one time he was prochoice; indeed, he and his wife were actually members of Planned Parenthood whom he now promises to eliminate if elected.
Paul Ryan is way too polarizing. He's the architect and face of Medicare privatization. Yet Bill Kristol and Stephen Hayes argued for him-or Rubio-in this week's Weekly Standard:
"It’s become conventional wisdom that Ryan and Rubio would be “bold” picks, while other choices like Ohio senator Rob Portman and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty are “safe.” Perhaps. But what looks safe can be risky. Portman, a good man and respected public servant, was George W. Bush’s budget director. Pawlenty’s presidential campaign was a disaster. The 2010 election was the best for Republicans in a long time. Ryan and Rubio embody the spirit of 2010. Pawlenty and Portman don’t."
"But beyond all of the calculations—beyond demography, geography, and the polls—is the most compelling reason for Romney to pick Ryan or Rubio: Doing so would signal that Romney understands the magnitude of the problems facing the country and would demonstrate that he has the will to solve them. It would suggest that Romney knows this is a big moment, and that he’s willing to run a big campaign. And at a time when the country so desperately needs real leadership, Romney would make clear that he’s ready to provide it by picking either Ryan or Rubio.."
"Which of the two should Romney choose? One of us slightly prefers Ryan, the other Rubio. But this we can say in unison and with conviction: Go for the gold, Mitt! Ryan or Rubio! "
I can see the Rubio argument-Romney needs Florida he also needs Hispanics. Maybe he could help in that regard. For whatever reason, however, he Rubio has not been seriously vetted.
There's no question that Ryan is very risky. However, ABC's Jonathan Karl argues:
"Karl thinks much of the political wisdom that sees Ryan as a detriment to the Romney ticket is undone by the former Massachusetts governor’s personal support for both Ryan as a politician and his embrace of the House Budget Committee chairman’s controversial Path to Prosperity budget reform proposal. ‘I think Romney has already embraced the Ryan budget and I think they’re fully aware that they’re going to get attacked on it whether he’s there or not.” http://bit.ly/N5ceSN"
It's true that Romney has already embraced the Ryan budget and embraced him personally back in Wisconsin. However, there's a big difference between saying in one sound bite that your support the Ryan budget, and having his face an name become synonymous with Romney's campaign. Kristol's right that it would put the real issues in sharp relief.
What he doesn't get, is that this is not at all Romney's goal-a read debate about the issues. Although the Very Serious People (VSP)-David Brooks, et. al-think Obama has cheapened the campaign by making it personal, this has actually been done as the only way to get past the media filter that Krugman talks about where a serious debate gets very short thrift.
I will quote him again as he put it so well:
"The point is that talking about Mr. Romney’s personal history isn’t a diversion from substantive policy discussion. On the contrary, in a political and media environment strongly biased against substance, talking about Bain and offshore accounts is the only way to bring the real policy issues into focus. And we should applaud, not condemn, the Obama campaign for standing up to the tut-tutters."
Basically, a Far Rightist like Kristol-and a Necon to boot-may think this is what Romney wants, but Romney knows very well that turning the campaign into a more direct debate about the Ryan budget is not the path to victory.. Essentially, Romney's premise is that if you want the Ryan budget, you're best off not talking about it too much.
I can't imagine he would go this way but I'd welcome it if he did as it really would crystallize what this campaign is really about. I just don't think that's what Romney wants for one minute.
No comments:
Post a Comment